search
top

The Truth about Mitt Romney’s Record on Guns

Let me start this post by injecting a little dose of political reality. The GOP field is what we’ve got to run against Obama, and that’s it. It doesn’t matter who shoulda/woulda/coulda run, the only ones who put themselves on the ballots are the only choices voters have in 2012. As much as I would love for Tim Pawlenty to still be in this race, he opted to drop out. I’ve seen people lament Mitch Daniels not entering the race, and don’t get me started on how many folks would cheer Paul Ryan making a run for the White House. None of that matters. None of those men put themselves on the ballot for president.

If Mitt ends up winning the race because GOP voters choose him in the nation’s primaries, gun owners need to know the truth about Mitt Romney’s record on guns as Governor of Massachusetts. I have said before many, many times that as a gun owner in Massachusetts during his term, I was extremely active in the efforts to fight more gun control. Guess who was on our side for that battle? Mitt.

As the state’s most active gun rights group notes in their write-up on Romney’s record, gun owners were able to make more reforms to the state’s oppressive gun laws under Mitt than they had in more than 20 years.

During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.

But what’s this? Didn’t you get the forwarded email from GOA and NAGR that Mitt went around and personally confiscated every firearm he called an “assault weapon” from gun owners in Massachusetts? I kid, but the exaggeration doesn’t seem terribly far off from some of the claims I’ve seen floating around the internet written by people who were not in the Bay State at the time and have no idea what gun laws were like before Mitt took office.

Massachusetts already had an AWB that was actually worse than the federal ban in unique ways. On the surface, it was exactly the same because it was partially tied to language in the federal ban. The state ban that was already on the books didn’t have an expiration date – their way of making sure that no matter what happened to the federal ban, the state ban would stand. In theory, when the federal ban expired, what was already on the books in Massachusetts would have just kept the same limits in effect. However, close reading revealed some big dangers for gun owners.

The state ban, in addition to no expiration date, didn’t have the list of nearly 700 exempted guns that the federal ban allowed. In other words, lawful gun owner would become illegal assault weapons owner overnight and probably never understand why. If an enterprising prosecutor wanted to build up some gun convictions very quickly without much work, he or she could suddenly go after every owner of an M-1 Carbine, Mini-14, Marlin Model 60, or Ruger 10/22 (or other guns on this list) and have a collection of “assault weapon” criminals locked up.

The original bill was written by an anti-gun senator who planned to expand the federal AWB dramatically. I don’t even remember all the crap he wanted to ban, but it was absurd. However, he introduced it as the federal law was getting ready to expire so he could claim that he was merely making sure the same federal ban remained in place at the state level. Reporters never bothered to check that the state already had their own version with no expiration date (and no list of exempted guns), so they ate up his talking points. Gun owners managed to get enough pressure on lawmakers to strip out all of the expansion provisions, put in a bunch of reforms, and add one little bit of language to the state ban that was already on the books before Romney ever took office. They formally tied the state ban to the federal ban in a way that preserved the list of exempted guns.

So, what you really should be saying is that legislators managed to SAVE nearly 700 guns from being suddenly declared unlawful in the state, add in several reforms to licensing that were a problem, and put the stops on an anti-gun bill in a creative way that the media never saw coming.

Here is GOAL’s full write-up of what the bill did for gun owners in the Bay State:

1) Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2) Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3) Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4) Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

5) Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6) Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7) Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8) Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”.

9) Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.

They have a full list of other things Mitt signed and did during his term to improve the situation for the state’s gun owners. Were there setbacks under him? Yes. To his people’s credit, they did work to correct the situation. I only hope he still has those folks who learned their lesson on the issue around him. If you want an idea of many of his missteps, go read the full report from GOAL because they do include them.

I say all of this not because I’m trying to shill for the man. I’m not actually a fan of Mitt Romney’s, and I don’t anticipate voting for him in the Pennsylvania primary. However, if the other Republican voters around the country choose him as the candidate, I believe we are doing our constituency a disservice if we aren’t honest about Mitt’s record on gun rights.

Will Mitt, if elected, appoint fantastic pro-Second Amendment judges and justices? I hope so, but I realize there’s no guarantee. What I do know is that based on what we have seen from Obama’s appointments, we will absolutely get more anti-Second Amendment justices out of a second term. I’d rather take my chances with a president who may be willing to listen to me, along with millions of other gun owners who are concerned about our rights. Whether it’s on the issue of judicial appointments or signing bills, I realize the reality of our chances with Obama in the Oval Office versus a candidate like Mitt Romney.

All of that said, why did TPaw have to bow out so soon? *sob*

115 Responses to “The Truth about Mitt Romney’s Record on Guns”

  1. David says:

    Wow, awesome post.

  2. ExurbanKevin says:

    Shaddup, you RINO. Mitt is a Bilderberger! He’s a Mormon, so that means he’s a Zionist! He’s going after our guns and then he’ll go after our precious bodily fluids! He’s from Massachusetts, which we all know is a state made up by the Ottoman Empire!

    Oh, and RON PAUL!

    *sigh*

    Sometimes I wonder who’s worse: The people on our side, or the people who are against us.

    Is Mitt perfect on guns? Oh heck no. Think back to 2008: The best candidate on guns was Huckabee, and his big-government solutions had more baggage than the Kardashians on a week-long stay in New York.

    I want a candidate who’ll err on the side of liberty. That’s it. not perfect on liberty, just working towards it.

    And besides: If we make the Senate and House dance to our tune, it doesn’t matter if a syphilitic camel DOES win the White House: That dromedary will have to dance to our tune.

    • Arnie says:

      Except that it always seems a Republican dominated Senate caves to the judicial appointments of a Democratic President (Ginsburg and Beyer) and never the other way around.

    • Edge says:

      Do you have any idea what Mormon’s really believe? I think not from your statement.

  3. mike says:

    Yeah, but what’s important is what Mitt Romney has to say about Mitt Romney:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ygw9CQ9po

    And Mitt Romney wants to ban guns. Like the ones I own. He said it in plain, clear English. No way I’m voting for that.

    • Sebastian says:

      Bush said the same thing, and it’s worth noting that if Bush not been elected, then re-elected, Heller would have lost.

      • mike says:

        Yeah, and I didn’t vote for Bush either. Hey, gambling is fun and that’s what you’re advocating by pushing Romney. Maybe I’m gambling by voting for Ron Paul (or Gary Johnson), but at least I won’t have to go home and take a shower when I’m done.

        • Sebastian says:

          I’m just saying, the right thing can happen through very imperfect candidates. I don’t blame anyone for voting for Ron Paul in the primary. That’s where people should be voting their conscience. I’ve never never liked the guy. I don’t like Mitt either, but at some point there’s going to be the “not Obama” guy running in this race that I’ll get behind one way or another.

          • mike says:

            I’m just saying, the right thing can happen through very imperfect candidates.

            Agreed. Both Romney and Obama, in their own words, want to ban guns. So I won’t be voting for either of them. It’s pretty simple, really.

            If you and other gun owners want to vote for someone who says he wants to ban guns – the very guns you own and shoot – then don’t be surprised when he tries to do exactly that. Heck, I even know gun owners who voted for Obama because they wanted “change”. Be careful what you wish for.

            • Zermoid says:

              For the primary I’m backing Ron Paul as I think overall he is the best choice to fix the country’s problems right now.

              But when it comes to the Primary election I will support WHOEVER wins the GOP nomination, because if Obummer wins WE will all lose big time.

            • Countertop says:

              If its Mitt and Obama and you vote for Obama – then you have nobody to blame but yourself when the Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy & Ginsburg all get replaced with folks who will do their best to gut and marginalize Heller (and yes, if your counting that would turn the 5-4 Heller victory into a 7-2 loss).

              • mike says:

                You say that assuming that Romney will elect conservative justices who can read the 2nd Amendment. There is absolutely nothing in his past to suggest that. So in effect, you’re saying that if the choice comes down to Obama or Romney, then I should gamble and vote Romney. If I’m just gambling, then I might as well gamble on someone I actually want to win.

                • Countertop says:

                  Well, first of all, the President doesn’t “elect” judges. He appoints them with the advice and consent of the Senate. If its Romney, you have a much much better chance of influencing those appointments than you do with Obama (where you have zero chance).

                  As far as gambling – you have a choice:
                  65% chance that Romney does the right thing (based on your view of the world).
                  5% chance that Obama does.
                  -95% chance that someone else does (because someone else wont be president and will actually help Obama win). If you think a -95% chance are good odds, then be my guest. I’d also offer to invite you to my weekly poker game as well. We have a $100 buy in.

              • Hopefully, they’d be STUPID enough to pull something that would FINALLY get boobus-Americanus off the couch and into the STREETS!

                If we can’t turn it around – if the collapse is inevitable, then LET’S GET IT OVER WITH!

                Ron Paul is what this country needs – he MIGHT be able to stop the otherwise inevitable collapse where mittens will just delay it a bit…

                If we can’t stop it – then LET’S GET IT OVER WITH!

      • Brad says:

        Bush did not say the same thing. You never heard any kind of anti-gun rhetoric from Bush the way you hear it from Romney.

        And what Bush did say about signing a renewal of the AW ban was a lie. I knew it was a lie because of Bush’s record as governor of Texas. Particularly because Bush signed a controversial Texas pro-gun bill during the height of the Columbine hysteria.

        Everyone knew Bush was blowing smoke during the 2000 campaign about signing an AW ban renewal, including the Brady Bunch. Bush wasn’t fooling anyone except those people not paying attention.

  4. Wes says:

    Romney says straight-out he thinks everyone buying a gun should have a background check. Sounds like he’s all for ending that evil “gun show loophole” of private transactions.

    Romney says straight-out he supported the “assault weapons” ban.

    And certain people on Second Amendment blogs would choose him over Ron Paul. Go figure.

    • mike says:

      Well, you have to cut Romney some slack. He wants to bomb Iran, dontchaknow.

      Anyway, I think Romney’s anti-gun positions would be seen by the GOP as someone willing how to reach across the aisle. Even if they didn’t agree with him, they wouldn’t be as unified in their opposition just because he has an (R) after his name. “Hey, at least he’s not Obama.”

      I’m not voting for someone who has clearly stated his interest to erode my gun rights or ban guns I own. Sadly, that view is uncommon among gun owners.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Since I just posted on the topic, and since you clearly didn’t read Bitter’s post; no, we won’t choose Romney over Ron Paul. But we will choose him over Obama.
      I certainly don’t plan to vote for Romney when the NJ primary rolls and, which is when that choice is made.

      But it looks likely that come November 6th, the choice will be between Romney and Obama. In the immortal words of Inner Circle, what’chu gonna do?

      • Sage Thrasher says:

        That right there is what it comes down to–the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t. We don’t know what Romney will do, but we darn sure know what Obama will do.

        The key to holding a President Romney accountable will be having a Republican senate. Even then, SCOTUS justices tend to go their own way after getting appointed, so the only acceptable justices should be those will unequivocal support for the 2nd Amendment. Such animals do exist, if rarely.

      • Wes says:

        Yes, “I clearly did read Bitter’s post.” And, yes, “Certain people on Second Amendment blogs would choose Romney over Ron Paul.” You would know that if you clearly read this blog every day like I do, but you clearly don’t.

        • Ian Argent says:

          I’m not actually a fan of Mitt Romney’s, and I don’t anticipate voting for him in the Pennsylvania primary.

          – drawn from post above.

          I was speaking for my self and quoting Bitter. Enough for a “We,” but not for “Certain people…” I’m sure certain people would choose Romney over Ron Paul – I’m not one of them either, and given the narrowing of the field and what I believe of Bitter’s politics, that makes it seem likely she’ll at least consider voting Paul in the primaries.

          I’m probably going to have to suck it up and vote Ron Paul myself in the NJ primary; I’m not a fan of his, but even less of a Romney fan. But come the general election, I will likely have to choose between a Northeast RINO who makes a weather-vane look steady, or a committed Marxist whose demonstrable personnel-choosing skills are sub-par, and whose administration has been the most outwardly corrupt as has existed in my political lifetime.

          I could probably assuage myself by saying “oh, NJ is a true-Blue state, my vote doesn’t matter.” Except I think that it might, especially if Romney is the nominee.

      • Simon Jester says:

        I have thrown away my vote on the lesser-of-two evils for the last time. I will not vote for either Romney or Obama. There isn’t a hair of difference between the two and their desired policies. And if Romney is in there with an “R” next to his name, most of an “R” Congress won’t oppose him on anything. So it certainly IS possible that Romney would be even worse.

  5. Wes says:

    Since we’re on the subject of Massachusetts, “gun ownership permits” in commie states are an amazing thing to me. So you pay a poll tax to get a state permit so you can buy a gun. And if you don’t renew that state permit later, the state takes your guns away. That’s absurd. How is such a thing possibly considered constitutional?

  6. Fiftycal says:

    #1; Ronulans, Ron Paul is NOT going to be the nominee. And if your opinion is that not voting for the “lesser of 2 evils” (Republican) doesn’t GUARANTEE THE GREATER OF EVIL, you should have your head examined. #2; I don’t like Romney (Yankee, mormon, squish RINO) BUT I’ll vote for him in a heart beat because he is NOT A MARXIST! #3; Romney has 12 votes right now. It takes 600+ to be the candidate. He is stuck at about 30%. That won’t win any nomination, no matter what the country club “establishment” thinks. And Rush is right. The RINO’s just want to take the Senate so they can fund THEIR friends with government largess. I hope to allah that the T party wakes up and starts pushing real conservatives in Congressional races.

    If we don’t change Congress soon, and Congress is NOT going to limit it’s own power, I want to push for a STATE Constitutional Convention. Among other things, I want a lifetime limit on appointed or elected officials of 10-12 years. I want the states to set the pay for their Congressional representatives. I want ALL LAWS to apply to Congress. I want a balanced budget amendment to be broken only in case of a declared war. I want the time tables changed so there are no more “lame duck” sessions and the new administration and Congress takes their seats soon after the election. And I want TAX LAWS changed.

    Anybody got anything else?

    • Sebastian says:

      It’s funny, I was just saying to Bitter “I’ll grant folks that the guy isn’t much of a conservative or libertarian. He basically blows with the wind, which is the problem with him. But he believes in capitalism, and that’s basically all it takes to be better than Obama.”

      • mike says:

        But he believes in capitalism, and that’s basically all it takes to be better than Obama.

        He also believes in banning guns that many of us own, and that’s basically all it takes to be no better than Obama. If you’re happy to vote for someone who says he wants to ban your guns and restrict your freedoms, then more power to you.

        • Sebastian says:

          As I mentioned, so did Bush, but Bush’s election and re-election was necessary in order for Heller and McDonald to win. We have a better chance with Romney than with Obama, and that’s likely going to be our choice.

          • mike says:

            So let me summarize:

            Romney: Hi, I’m going to ban some of your guns and close that “gun show loophole” that I keep reading about on HuffPo.

            You: You sir have my vote!

            • Sebastian says:

              The other choice is Obama.

              • mike says:

                And you think there’s a difference between him and Obama. Ok, so he’ll replace Obama’s Wall Street buddies with his own Wall Street buddies. Color me unimpressed.

            • Thomas F says:

              Any One But Obama……AOBO’12

              I want RP to answer one question and one question only, will he run third party if he loses the Republican primaries………

              A question to you, will you vote for him if he does run third party?

              Because if he runs third party after losing in the primaries, Obama, will win in NOV.

              If he does, he can EFF-off and DIE…….

              • mike says:

                Ron Paul already answered that question.

                Google it.

                • Thomas F says:

                  Who to believe…. who to believe….

                  the Yes man….

                  Mr No Go…..

                  or Maybe so…

                  You did not answer my question, will you follow RP third party?

                  AOBO’12

                  I will vote for Paul if he wins the republican primary, will you follow him if leaves?

                  But you better hear this, if RP runs third party, I will join Mark Levin……

                  (Edited by Bitter to reduce the size of the URLs that were messing up the entire page layout.)

                • Thomas F says:

                  No he didn’t that crap ass is hedging his bets and hemming and hawing around the edges……

                  Just like you haven’t answered my question…..

                  Will you vote for RP if he jumps ship….

                  I will vote for RP if he wins…..

                  Well?

                • mike says:

                  I will vote for RP if he wins…..

                  The more, the merrier.

              • Simon Jester says:

                I don’t think Romney has a snowball’s chance of beating Obama. Dems are registering as Repubs to vote for Romney. He’s a dream opponent for them.

        • Countertop says:

          No he doesn’t. He believes in getting elected and saying and doing whatever it takes to get elected. THat’s a HUGE difference from Obama. Banning guns doesn’t help – and drastically hurts – Mitt Romney. So, Mitt Romney no longer believes in banning guns.

          The problem with Obama is that he doesn’t care what you think or want, or how it impacts him. He knows what’s right for you.

          So Obama still holds out hope that he will eventually get to ban guns. Mitt Romney doesn’t want to touch the gun issue at all – and if anything, will seek to increase gun rights because thats the way the political wind is blowing.

          • Michael says:

            And that sir, is why he is so dangerous and why I will not vote for Mitt Romney. If he will change his opinion based on the “political winds” then he is easily corruptible.

            If the GOP cannot put forth a candidate that will hold strong and stand by their beliefs no matter the political wind, then they should not win the election. I want a candidate that understands AND RESPECTS the Constitution and the Rights of the citizens. Very few in our Government do so now.

            I’m tired of the continued assault on my 2nd Amendment Rights. I want a President that will push to repeal current laws to bring Federal Code in line with the Constitution based on the Heller decision and the McDonald decision. Stop trying to undermine our Rights and work to strengthen them. Why is it so hard to find someone that can do that?

          • mike says:

            He believes in getting elected and saying and doing whatever it takes to get elected.

            So in other words, he has no integrity. And you see this as a positive thing?!? WTF is wrong with people?

            • Countertop says:

              I see it for what it is.

              I don’t read into it anything else than the truth of the matter. And it means we have control over him, to a point, if he’s elected. Which is better than 1) dealing with Obama in the 2nd term when he doesn’t care about re-election or 2) wasting our vote – or simply not voting – and ending up with Obama.

              Of course, if your in a state where Obama or Romney are going to just cruise to a landslide victory (I don’t know of any for Obama except maybe Illinois) then by all means go ahead and make your protest vote. But if your state is competitive – and you don’t vote for Romney in the general election, then you have no one to blame but yourself when your right to own a gun is restricted further.

              • mike says:

                [If] you don’t vote for Romney in the general election, then you have no one to blame but yourself when your right to own a gun is restricted further.

                Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? Romney said that he wants to restrict my right to own a gun. So a vote for him is a vote to restrict my gun rights, just like you say a vote for Obama is. So if they’re both going to restrict my gun rights, why would I consider voting for either of them? Because one has an (R) after his name? No thank you, I’m done rewarding incompetence. This time I’m voting for someone I’d actually want to be president.

            • Ian Argent says:

              So he’s a politician. All of them say and do what it takes to get elected (or they don’t get elected). So far, he’s saying and doing what the GOP primary voters want to hear and see…

  7. Steve says:

    Thanks for putting this information out there. I didn’t know about any of it.

  8. Billll says:

    The T-party is primarying the squishes. Ask Hatch, Baucus, and Baucus’s junior partner whassisname.
    Is Romney the conservative giant we’ve been hoping for? Not hardly, but he’s arguably a capitalist which makes him a big improvement over Obama.
    I believe that if a Republican House and Senate vote to repeal Obamacare, Romney will sign it. And if Mitt suggests a return of the AWB, the heat that would generate would bring the effort to a halt fairly quickly.
    Should the Tea party field candidates? Yes, but only in races where there is no Republican or where the outcome is foreordained in favor of the Dem. 3-party races favor the least popular candidate, so let’s not give anything away. After the 2012 election the Tea Party can become a force in its own right, soliciting the conservatives and primarying the squishes.

    The Republican party can go the way of the Whigs.

    • Wes says:

      Someone wake me up when the Tea Party gets rid of all its big-government neocons and Bible thumpers that partially took it over.

      I see it every day. “Tea Party” people who bash Ron Paul endlessly even though he should be their near-perfect candidate.

      “I have never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a tax increase, want to end the income tax, audit the fed, want to cut five departments and a trillion dollars my first year year….”

      hypocrite tea party people: “Nah!”

      • eeyore says:

        Actually, Wes, Tea Party people would be backing RP to a greater degree if it weren’t for one teeeeeeeny little problem. RP says it is no concern of ours if Iran gets the bomb, as they wouldn’t use it because they don’t want to “commit suicide.” Well, actually, DinnerJacket and Khamenei are both “Twelvers,” followers of the 12th Imam, and they believe that man can create the necessary chaos to bring on Armageddon and cause the Mahdi to emerge from “occultation” and create Islamic rule over the entire earth. DJ leads an annual “Death to America” rally attended by hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters, they have a rocket capable of placing EMP weapons over America from freighters at sea, and are less than one year away from “nuclear capability.”

        I think most of the Tea Partiers who won’t back RP feel it is prudent to believe that the leaders of Iran will do exactly what they say they will do, and nearly have the capability to carry it out.

        • mike says:

          have a rocket capable of placing EMP weapons over America from freighters at sea, and are less than one year away from “nuclear capability.

          Give me a break. Not only does Israel have loads of actual nukes they’d love to use on Iran, but how many more years will Iran be “less than a year away from nuclear capability”? Aren’t we getting close to the 10-year anniversary of that tired lie yet? You know, I hear they bought yellow cake from Niger too.

          As I understand it, Ron Paul would just stop telling Israel not attack Iran. Iran isn’t any more of a threat than Iraq was. And Iraq already had WMDs. Oh, wait..

        • Wes says:

          Like I said, you’d think people in the Taxed Enough Already Party would support the guy who has never voted for a tax increase, wants to cut a trillion dollars his first year, and is truly for limited government.

          But, nope, the neocon Isolationists in the new and improved tea party want to sanction Iran until it makes a move to protect itself so then they have an excuse to bomb and invade Iran for looking at the U.S. funny.

          The U.S. is going to be 16 trillion dollars in debt come election time, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly cares. Even for people who want to police the world, it’s hard to do that when you’re broke.

          Let’s all take a trip down memory lane about the Iraq war propaganda and how Iran looks like a rerun. Included is Ron Paul predicting the Iraq war and 9/11 three years before they happened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KiRAMvAlpQ

          • Alex Europa says:

            The debt issue is the NUMBER 1 national security threat facing this country…well, it was until the NDAA and Enemy Expatriotion Act were passed. I don’t understand how everyone can complain about having a our Constitution TRAMPLED, not having a balanced budget, not having 2nd Amendment support from the President, and claim to be tired of wars over nothing; yet they refuse to back Ron Paul who actually BELIEVES in the Constitution (and has the VOTING RECORD-not words-to back it up), wants a balanced budget, has an A+ rating from the NRA, and said from the START that the Iraq WMD threat was bogus and would cost us American lives.

            Some people need to man up and vote for who they BELIEVE in, not play into the mainstream media’s BULLSHIT outlook that Ron Paul can’t win so we should just ignore him. If everyone who WOULD vote for him grew a pair and said that they would vote for him, then he would win…I don’t think it would even be a contest. But this incessant stance that a vote for him is a wasted vote is the stance of a coward, and is contageous.

            By the way, MSNBC-Obama’s personal puppet network-is standing behind Romney…that, in and of itself, should tell you something.

  9. FatWhiteMan says:

    http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

    Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

    “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

    No thank you. And I hope the NRA is not going to pull a McCain style love-fest on him in St. Louis. If so, I’ll just stay home.

    • Bitter says:

      The exact story behind this is explained in the link. The true content is this post. If you weren’t a Massachusetts gun owner at the time, I understand why it is confusing. That’s why I wrote this post, and that’s why GOAL created the page to explain everything for those who live outside the state or simply weren’t paying attention. I’m not defending his behavior at the press conference, and neither does GOAL. However, I do think it’s worth your time to go fully read what I linked (as I suggested in the post) so you see what actually happened as explained by someone who was actually in press conference and in meetings with his staff after the fact.

      • "gunner" says:

        i was working an armed job in massachusetts, with a non-resident carry permit. i didn’t follow much of the story then, too busy working, driving a 62 mile commute every morning and evening, eating and sleeping. but if it comes down to romney vs. obama my vote will NOT be for obama. even alfred e. neuman, the “what, me worry” kid would be better than obama.

  10. SomeGuy says:

    OK. So it’s like this? Romney MIGHT be a lot of things, he IS the guy who basically invented outsourcing at Bain. He IS the guy who gave them the ideas that led to Obamacare. He IS the guy who signed an ‘assault weapons’ ban with no sunset. And you simply can not understate how bad those three things alone are. American Capitalist? Ask the folks at some of the companies Bain bought, ran into the ground, took public and cashed out on, or simply run like garbage, running out good management to put their own clueless outsiders in place(Sports Authority for example), oh they make money, but they screw every single possible person they can in the process, using Romney’s core strategies (Clear Channel).

    The way I see it, should he win the nomination, our choice will be the pale Obama or the darker one.

  11. MicroBalrog says:

    I’m going to quote Sebastian on this issue, as he wrote in October:

    “Romney is unreliable on this issue. Bitter has experience dealing with Romney from her time up in Mass. He is not to be trusted.”

    http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/10/12/prepping-for-2012/#comment-107533

    Here’s what Sebastian and Bitter posted on this issue quite recently:

    http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/07/09/romneys-son-gets-grilled-on-2nd-amendment/

    I’m not quoting random paulbot here, I’m quoting Sebastian and Bitter.

    • Bitter says:

      You act like you’re presenting contradictory information. I said quite clearly that he has problems in his record, and I provided a site that outlined several of those problems. I never claim in this post that he’s the go-to passionate, true Second Amendment hero. However, I’m sick of people complaining about him for things that simply aren’t true. There’s plenty to be less-than-pleased on, but that’s still better than the options we have with a lame duck Obama in the White House.

      • mike says:

        There’s plenty to be less-than-pleased on, but that’s still better than the options we have with a lame duck Obama in the White House.

        False. A lame duck president is the best option of all. The less they do in DC, the better for all of us. Romney is bad precisely for that reason – because the GOP would work with whatever he threw at them. If Romney had to appoint 75% Dem judges because the MA legislature was leftist, then why don’t we focus primarily on keeping Congress conservative and have Obama appoint 75% GOP judges? If that’s really the reason for Mitt’s 75% Dem judges, then it’s gotta work both ways. Unless that excuse is BS, which I think it is.

        • Sebastian says:

          By lame duck, she means he doesn’t have to face voters again, which means he doesn’t have to be tempered by seeking re-election. There’s quite a lot the President can do to us. Quite a lot.

          • Ian Argent says:

            A lame duck president who wants to continue to have influence is the most unsafe thing there is, because he doesn’t have to please the voters; he has to please the people who can grant him influence. If for no other reason Obama has to go, because his second term will be spent impressing the Mandarins of the NGOs and the UN.

        • Bitter says:

          An entire blueprint for screwing gun owners without Congress has already been provided to Obama. And you are truly arguing that zero accountability to voters to enact this crap is honestly “the best option of all”?

          When that’s what you consider the best option, I don’t think we have much to continue discussing here.

          • mike says:

            So you believe that the answer is to elect a guy who wants to ban guns that many of us own and close loopholes that aren’t loopholes? Do you not see the doublethink? “If we don’t elect this gun banner, then Obama will ban guns!” That’s not a very compelling reason to vote for Romney.

  12. Right Wing Wacko says:

    I voted for Bush holding my nose both times, more so the second time. I also voted for McCain, but that time I went in kicking and screaming.

    I’m finding it very hard to vote for Willard “Mit” Romney… somehow I smell a RAT!

    Unfortunatly there are NO viable alternatives, and I beleive it was intentionally setup that way.

    • Bitter says:

      How, exactly, has it been “intentionally setup that way”? I hear this kind of stuff frequently, so I would legitimately like to know where this accusation comes from. I’m not a fan of Mitt, and I don’t plan to vote for him at this point in time. However, I recognize that voters in other states also have a say. So far, many of those voters really like him. I’m willing to accept that. But, if it’s all being secretly set up, please, explain this one. I truly find it fascinating, the same way I did in 2008.

      • SomeGuy says:

        Occam’s razor applied, in my mind. When people drop out (Huntsman – or say in the case of Christie, never run) and endorse Romney, isn’t that fairly strong circumstantial evidence of the GOP pushing him on us?

        • Bitter says:

          Okay, let’s use that logic. SomeGuy, you didn’t run for president. YOU FORCED MITT ROMNEY DOWN OUR THROATS!

          I hope you can see why I simply don’t accept the thinking that someone is shoving a candidate down our throats by simply not getting in the race.

          • SomeGuy says:

            OK. No problem, let us ignore the never run then, even though he said he was not running and supporting Romney in about the same breath. Why then when Huntsman dropped out did he throw behind him right away? McCain – endorsing Romney, while old Mitty seems to be courting the rest of the GOP leadership, who are responding predictably.

            I’m not against having my mind changed and I hope you are right, it just seems to me like the GOP is setting itself up for failure here, just like it did with McCain.

        • Alpheus says:

          What’s there about Huntsman or Christie that makes either of them better than Romney? As a Utahn who got to see a brief amount of Huntsman in action (I spent a good deal of time before that watching NY State Politics in action), I don’t have all that much desire to vote for him; and Christie’s stance on New Jersey’s gun laws leave about as much to be desired as Romney’s.

          I’d feel just as icky voting for either of these, as I would have for any other of the current Republican candidates!

          And who is this mysterious “GOP”? Really, it’s just the old-time politicians, attempting to push the same old candidates…which, incidentally, is subject to pressure from us, the GOP grassroots, as any other organization is.

          • Ian Argent says:

            I live in NJ, and as of right now, Christie doesn’t appear to have a (public) stance on gun laws, other than heartily wishing the whole thing would go away; because it’s distracting him from breaking the backs of the public service unions. I’d like my taxes to go down so that I can buy more stuff, guns included. A loosening of gun laws in NJ without getting rid of the endemic petty corruption doesn’t help all that much.

            Above statement based on his actions and statements concerning Brian Aitken’s commutation (not pardon) request.

            I’ll also note that his famous “Pro-AWB” flyer lost him the primary election he published it in, to Michael Carroll, who has consistently pushed a shall-issue law in NJ almost every session.

      • mike says:

        I hope we can all agree that the media play a huge role in who gets elected. If they don’t like someone, they can spin negative (or ignore) all day long. I don’t think it’s conspiracy, but folks running networks letting their personal biases show.

      • Alex Europa says:

        I wouldn’t say that it’s secretly being set up. I hear some talk about voter fraud and whatnot, but I don’t even see a reason to go there. It’s a fact that the “mainstream” media is corrupt and does everything it can to cover the candidate that they want to win. There are several examples of CNN and FOX News simply leaving Ron Paul off the screen during poll results-skipping right from #2 to #4 or whatever each specific poll’s results were.

        And they are STILL doing it, even though he is the #2 Republican candidate. At FOX’s debate last night, Paul was all the way on the end…AGAIN; despite his tight 3rd place finish in Iowa and 2nd place finish in NH. Oh, and let’s not forget that they would have conveniently left him off the post-debate discussion if it wasn’t for Harris Faulkner who called the reporter back an hour later to go over the graphs again to include Ron Paul. http://www.infowars.com/video-fox-news-caught-completely-excluding-ron-paul-from-post-debate-coverage/

        It’s easy for people to “like” a candidate when the “mainstream” media refuses to actually discuss that candidate’s history and voting record.

  13. Fiftycal says:

    To the folks that are waiting for jesus to show up and be the nominee; Obama and the Occupy/FAIL hippys say “thanks”. BTW, unless you are in Iowa or New Hampshire, YOU havn’t voted for a candidate YET! Romney won’t have 50% by the time the convention rolls around. Don’t burn any more bridges unless you are a ronulan. If you are, get lost.

  14. FatWhiteMan says:

    This is starting to remind me of Wayne LaPierre on McCain again. In Kansas in 2001 LaPierre said that McCain was the standard bearer for the enemies of the 1st and 2nd Amendment then in 2008 in Louisville, he told us how “McCain has been a tireless champion for the 2nd Amendment for decades”. Did he not think we kept back issues of American Guardian?

    I learned my favorite phrase “Mitt The Shit” on this blog.

    But did you read the link that I posted?(I started to say “from his own words” but is sounds more like the Brady’s wrote it for him): “[assault weapons] are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people”.

    That is misunderstood pro-gun? Just how do we get from that in 2004 to him being “good on guns”? Or just “not real bad on guns” or even “marginally not as bad as the other guy on guns”? The saddest part is Obama has the better pro-gun record at this point.

    I know we have a long way to go until a clear candidate is chosen but I seriously hope that if it is “Mitt The Shit”, as you all call him here, I hope the NRA doesn’t try to do a white wash job again. We just can’t afford to piss away that much political capital like last time.

    • eeyore says:

      You really want to piss away some serious political capital? – Stay home Nov. 6.

      That way, we can for sure get a couple more Sonia “Heller is settled law and will guide my process…No, wait! Heller was wrongly decided and should be reversed” Sotomayors. What’s the the worst Mittens would do? A couple more Anthony Kennedys? Which would you prefer? A couple of new Constitutional squishes, or a couple of new helpers for “fundamentally transforming America?”

      Your choice: Help elect a squish, or allow Odumbo to nominate someone like Diane “Turn ’em in, Mr & Mrs America” Feinstein to head up the ATF after she retires from the Senate?

    • Sebastian says:

      The reason we don’t like Mitt is because he blows with the winds. The story behind his statements involves his handlers changing what he was supposed to say, and suddenly a moderately pro-gun bill pro-gun groups were pushing becomes a signing statement about the evils of assault weapons. I’m sure his handlers figured that would play well in the media.

      And that, folks, is the problem with Mitt Romney. He can’t be depended on not to do things like that. He doesn’t really have any conviction on the gun issue. He’ll do what’s politically expedient. The good news about that is as President, being pro-gun will be more expedient than being anti-gun. But the guy really doesn’t have conviction on the issue, which is not something you can say for Santorum or Paul, who do.

      • mike says:

        We need to enact some commonsense legislation to close the “terror gap” – I mean, who wants terrorists to have guns, right? How much are we willing to get thrown under the bus in the name of his political expedience? Perhaps the “gun show loophole” too?

  15. Zermoid says:

    I say we should vote for who we WANT in the primary, for me it’s Ron Paul, do I like all his policies? No. But he is the ONLY candidate who is strongly pro gun, pro Constitution, for smaller (and legal) government, and believes in getting govt off of America’s back and allowing individual freedom to thrive.

    But, when it comes to the General Election we all MUST vote for Whoever wins the Republican primary or we will all lose and be saddled with Obummer for 4 more years. We cannot afford that.

  16. Dannytheman says:

    I am sorry I keep harping the same song!
    Bush 41 was a moderate Republican. Ross Perot got in to lean more right. The further right folks voted for Perot, the moderate Republicans and half the Independents voted Bush, and winning was a young sexual active pervert from the south, slick Willie with 42% of the vote.
    Vote your heart on Primary, but for Gods sake and the sake of the 2nd amendment, vote Republican on Nov 6th. We go to get this socialist, share the wealth President out of there.
    Don’t be stubborn to the point of losing everything we have worked for.

  17. Steve says:

    When you vote in the republican primary you are participating in a team sport. Implicit in your vote is the idea that you will support the team whether your preferred candidate wins or not.
    If you cannot understand that simple principle then perhaps you lack the maturity to participate in electoral politics in a free country.

    • FatWhiteMan says:

      The second amendment seems to be taking one for the team a lot lately.

      • Patrick says:

        Respectfully, you are wrong.

        More gains have been made in favor of our right than at any time in American history. It took decades for the 1990-style gun control to be built up and passed. We are dismantling that legacy much faster than they expected.

        Heller and McDonald came about due to democratic processes. Those judges didn’t just show up and win some lottery. They ended up there after we voted for someone who would nominate judges more likely than not to see like we do.

        Those cases – as important as they are – do not really change much for most gun owners. But the tail on them is long. They represent a sea-change in our movement and if fully nurtured will kill the most egregious gun-control schemes in place today. Forever.

        We are winning but are at a serious junction in the process. The next 6-7 years are critical (there is a plan if you look for it). We need to do everything we can to make those years as helpful to us as possible.

        Mitt isn’t Perry when it comes to RKBA. But unlike Obama, Mitt will play along with us, if only to avoid losing Conservative support.

        I think the “Anybody But…” line is a bit of a cop-out. But when it comes to RKBA, I see Romney playing along. The economy will be his #1 priority and gun issues may not even hit his radar. But the Congress will act, and he will cooperate.

        Obama fears HR 822 because it would require a public veto. That would hurt him…and he is liberal and gets his support from those most likely to support gun-control.

        Romney is going to be getting his support from those most likely to support RKBA. If Obama cannot veto an pro-gun bill, what are the chances Romney would feel safer doing the same?

        A President is not a King. He doesn’t make the law. Congress does. The Congress could very well go our way this year, and the Presidency will oppose or accept what they do. We don’t need a rabidly pro-RKBA President. We just need one who is not rabidly anti-RKBA.

        We literally need someone who will just smile and go along. Someone who can sense the shift in the wind and ride it. And contrary to your supposition, RKBA is winning where it counts.

        Some think it cynical to support a candidate who changes with the times. I think the Founders called it “Representative Democracy”.

    • mike says:

      Implicit in your vote is the idea that you will support the team whether your preferred candidate wins or not.

      No, the GOP isn’t entitled to my vote. If they want it, they better earn it. The GOP got my vote for free with McCain. It’s not happening again. I’ll vote for any one of them but Romney. If he’s their choice, then more power to them. But in a free country, I’m not obligated to vote for someone I absolutely positively wouldn’t want to see as president – whether it’s Obama or Romney.

    • Wes says:

      “If you cannot understand that simple principle then perhaps you lack the maturity to participate in electoral politics in a free country.”

      lol.

      My team left me.

    • Simon Jester says:

      What an absolute load of crap! Are we going to start requiring voters to sign party loyalty contracts in order to vote. I DO NOT vote by party, but by individual. I have thrown my vote away in previous years by voting for the lesser of two evils. We gain nothing by continuing to elect these folks. Nothing changes. There is so little difference between the majority of the Republican and Democratic parties, that it doesn’t matter. Both are BigGov authoritarian statists. They both want to control your life – the only difference is what area of your life is first on their lists.

      Romney is one of them. I will not vote for Romney. I will vote for Paul in the Primary. If it comes down to Romney/Obama from the two-headed party, I will cast my vote elsewhere.

  18. emdfl says:

    Romney is a northeast Rockerfeller republican(RINO/DIABL) and like all good libs will do or say anything that will get him a few extra votes.
    His problem is that – as opposed to the good old days – the internet has a very long memory and doesn’t get flushed as easily as the old media.
    BTDT ADIA(ain’t doin’ it) again. If the stupid party is too stupid to learn then they deserve whatever happens to them. The key is to build a solid conservative majority in Congress that won’t bend over and grab ankles every time a lib from either party says “ankles”.

  19. Patrick says:

    Romney will do what is good for him, much like the Congress. There is no sense in reading the Tea Leaves of the past. Want to know the future? Just ask: What is good for the politicians?

    We are. Gun ownership is at an all-time high. New demographic groups are owning guns and carrying – even the MSM is producing stories about female hipster yoga instructors packing heat because “the power of self-reliance is affirming to a woman”. Proof that gun-control jumped the shark: when we started to win over (some) feminists!

    Those of us more plugged into the gun-scene (aka: everyone here) are quite aware that the mini-carry “mouse gun” phenomena is responding to new entrants to the gun ownership league. These guns were not created for die-hard gun enthusiasts. They are for the ever-expanding ranks of gun owners. Data backs it up, but even anecdotally we feel it: How many gun-forum/blog “best caliber” arguments included the .380 ACP prior to 2010? I thought the cognizance of our collective community required either 9mm or “something that starts with a 4”?

    What does this have to do with Romney?

    Everything. The guy wants to be President. The Congress Critters want to keep their jobs and expand their personal opportunities. They cannot do so while pissing off gun owners.

    Guns are more mainstream then ever. The MSM is catching on. We’ve seen ABC, CBS and even CNN carry stories on gun ownership that didn’t include the (formerly) requisite gun-control drivel. Outside of some old-school Dems in select geographies, 1990-style gun-control is dead.

    New gun owners are not going to all join the NRA or the SAF, but they will vote their own interests. And today, those interests – more than any time in recent American History – include the keeping and bearing of arms for personal defense.

    Even Obama recognizes this fact by attempting to go after our rights via backdoor means.

    HR 822 is a dead letter this year. For those who wish it would pass, take solace in the fact it won’t even get a straight vote in the Senate (unlike previous years). This is proof we are winning, because unlike previous Congresses, this time it would pass. Obama would veto that bill, and the Dems cannot put themselves into a situation where they are seen vetoing a pro-carry bill. Once upon a time they would have gladly let this pass, just so they could veto it in a public spectacle of gun-control. Not today. Today many resent the fact Obama won’t just play along and let it go.

    You can count on Mitt to look after Mitt. Same with Congress. There will be no new AWB. There will be no national registration.

    Instead, we are probably going to see things like Reciprocity pass. Pro-RKBA Congressional staffers have a short list of (good) 922 changes they want to make. I’ve seen some of it. Mitt doesn’t have to push it – he just needs to smile and sign it. Obama won’t do that. Mitt will.

    FWIW, I personally would prefer the perfect Freedom Candidate ™, but that means I would have to run and win. Not gonna happen. Alternatively, I want someone who will win and sign our pro-gun legislation, even if they do it not out of love of RKBA, but just to avoid pissing us off.

    “Whether by an inch or a mile, a win is still a win.”

  20. Steve says:

    Mike, fight for your candidate in the primaries. Then get with the program and support the team.
    Then read what Patrick has to say. He makes a lot of sense.
    To paraphrase Willam F. Buckley, vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable…then put the screws to him and bend him to our will.
    Politicians, with few exceptions are scum. Ron Paul is not our savior. No politician is or ever will be ( with the possible of exception of The Gipper, peace be upon him).

    • mike says:

      Ron Paul is not our savior.

      I’m not sure why you’re making this about Ron Paul, when it’s actually about Romney. I’ll vote for anyone in the GOP field except Romney. If he gets the nod, I’ll have to look outside the GOP. Romney isn’t acceptable to me – just like Obama isn’t acceptable to you. So I won’t vote for Romney (or Obama). When you’re willing to get talked into voting for Obama, then come tell me how I should vote for Romney.

  21. Granny says:

    My word, I think no one was saying they supported the man but since no one else that’s better stayed in the race or ran at all (and with the way people destroy people’s lives via the media not sure I blame the good guys) Mitt appears to be the lessor of two evils. I, too, have prayed for a miracle but so far it hasn’t happen!

    • Wes says:

      Why isn’t Paul better than Romney? Heck, I just read a report that Ron Paul had to go to the chiropractor due to lugging around the heavy burden of the Constitution every day. Other politicians tend to not have such problems.

      • Bitter says:

        Heck, I just read a report that Ron Paul had to go to the chiropractor due to lugging around the heavy burden of the Constitution every day. Other politicians tend to not have such problems.

        I don’t even care if this is a joke, this is the kind of crap you expect out of North Korea about Kim Jong-il. This is also a great examples for why his supporters turn many others off.

        • JeremyS says:

          really? Wow. The Ron Paul hate runs deep with this one.

          • Bitter says:

            No, it’s called an extreme dislike of creepy claims that try to elevate a candidate to near god-like status. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen something along these lines said; no man deserves that kind of worship.

            • Wes says:

              A lugging around the Constitution joke is on par with worshiping Kim Jong-il? mmmm… I don’t think so.

              It’s Quite Obvious Ron Paul is the constitutional candidate in this election. Be it on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, or whatever else. Heck, Romney “differed” a question on the Constitution to Paul in the middle of a debate!

              What’s crap is when people say hey let’s vote for Romney because maybe/hopefully he won’t pass anti-gun laws. As of right now, Obama has a better record on being pro-Second than Romney does.

              Your reply still doesn’t answer my question. Granny said, “no one better stayed in the race.” My question: Why is Romney considered better than Paul? He sure ain’t better on guns.

              • Me says:

                “As of right now, Obama has a better record on being pro-Second than Romney does.”

                Hah, true and Obama has a clear record of not taking on fights he can’t win. That and a tendency to tell them realities they don’t want to hear drives the left liberals to the point where I expect mass wrist slittings at places like Huffington Post sometimes.

                The fact is that gun control lost. All the “eek Obama” stuff is hyped up to keep donations coming into our Washington lobbyists who’s lifestyles have come to rely on them. That’s fine since we need them there and vigilant but it’s foolish to judge everything on obvious sales hype.

                The problem here is that Mitt very literally says anything people want to hear at any given point. As soon as he wins the primary he’ll do a 180 degree turn on most of what he says now. I have never seen anybody so oily and obviously phony out in front. They usually get weeded out. He makes Bill Clinton look like an honest man by comparison. Aside from the obvious point that you just can’t trust a guy who’s always willing to agree with you and then walk over to the next guy and agree with him it looks weak as hell. You don’t know what he really thinks because he doesn’t ever have the balls to tell you if he thinks you won’t like it. I think this is going to be just another in a line of Massachusetts weenies who get their ass kicked by the sitting president.

                Ron Paul will at least have the balls to take Obama straight on.

            • Alex Europa says:

              Wow Bitter, you’re really living up to your name on this one. It wasn’t a claim…it was a joke. A joke based in the fact that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who actually cares about the Constitution.

              Before you start off on your “worship” rant again, show me JUST ONE other candidate who has EVER voted on an issue based on it’s constitutionality.

              • Wes says:

                If that’s the kind of heat I get for making a Ron Paul Constitution joke, it’s a good thing I didn’t make a Ron Paul Chuck Norris joke. uh oh… too late!

                Chuck Norris has only lost once. But Ron Paul is too polite to mention it.

                • Bitter says:

                  I think a commenter at Tam’s put it best when describing Ron Paul’s chances and how that relates to his followers that think being weird & creepy is a good thing:

                  The Ronulans. You’ll have a nationwide orgasm which can be heard in the middle of the Mojave Desert, and then get to work campaigning for the Republican nominee. You’ll knock on doors, you’ll set up and man table at malls and supermarkets, and you’ll sit in church basements and make phone calls.

                  You’ll work your asses off, because the time has come, this is the moment! You’ll talk about Ron Paul. You’ll talk and talk about him, the only way you guys ever talk about him, and you’ll do what you all do best–

                  You’ll fuck up Ron Paul’s chances. You’ll be off-putting and alienating, you’ll ascribe the worst motives to the smallest, most hesitant disagreement, and when you’re done talking to given individual they will hang up the phone, or close their front door, or walk away looking over their shoulder at you in case you are following them, and decide that, hell, they’re still alive and kicking after four years of Obama, it can’t be that bad, and might even vote ‘D’ on the names down-ticket.

                  That’s my nightmare. Because all you guys that say you loves you some Ron Paul just cannot restrain yourselves from showing up places and, you know, talking about him.

                  Show the country some mercy, please, and start using some judgement.

                • Alex Europa says:

                  What I find off-putting are all these people saying that Ron Paul and his supporters are crazy yet the second you ask for REAL examples they are the ones who crawl back into their name-calling hole and aren’t willing to give any examples. He was “crazy” when he talked about the NWO…now there are dozens of videos of politicians using that exact phrase and even describing the goal of the New World Order and One World Government. He was “crazy” when he stood up and said that we didn’t have sufficient evidence to go into Iraq; Colin Powell is on record years later saying that, knowing what he knows now, he doesn’t think that we should’ve gone in because the evidence wasn’t there. Ron Paul was “crazy” for saying that the Federal Reserve is the root cause of the inflation of the dollar; yet now most experts agree on that point. Now, Ron Paul is “crazy” for “letting Iran get ‘the bomb'” yet there are intelligence reports that once again support his position that there isn’t credible evidence to support the fear mongering. (As an aside, if they try to sink one of our ships in the SOH, it better be on like Donkey Kong!)

                  I asked one simple question, Bitter, and you deflected it, just like all of the people from the “Ron Paul is crazy camp” do. Show me one other candidate who has honored his oath to the Constitution, really, just ONE.

                  We’re so vocal because a) the “mainstream” media STILL does everything they can to ignore Ron Paul and b) everyone else is so dismissive about candidates who are happy to wipe their ass with the same Constitution that many Ron Paul haters CLAIM to want their 2nd Amendment rights in order to defend (“The Second Amendment protects the rest of the rights.”). Newsflash, Ron Paul is the only candidate with an A+ NRA rating and is also the only candidate who hasn’t made a career of trampling on the Constitution. How does that make him crazy? That’s a genuine question, one that no one can seem to answer.

                  If someone is a single issue voter, fine, but I don’t want to hear them clamor on about how politicians need to respect our constitutionally protected RKBA when that same person isn’t willing to go to bat for the one politician that actually honors his oath to defend the Constitution.

                  • Bitter says:

                    I didn’t say a word about Ron Paul. I’m talking about his supporters. The fact is that when supporters of a candidate come off as either crazy or simply obnoxious, it can reflect poorly on the candidate. I’ve posted on the topic before in regards to other candidates, so it’s not like I’m picking on Ron Paul. Locally, it happened with Sam Rohrer in 2010. Is it rather unfair to the candidates themselves? Yes. Unfortunately, when that becomes the face of the campaign that voters actually see day in and day out, it doesn’t matter whether the off-putting behavior is coming from an overly enthusiastic volunteer or the formal campaign.

                    Also, his NRA grade isn’t A+. As a current NRA member, I actually looked it up. You might want to as well if you’re going to try and use it as a selling point. Again, even though that false claim is just coming from you, if you’re out there repeating it often enough to people who can look it up and find out it isn’t true, they will legitimately wonder if that’s not a line the campaign is pushing even though it’s not true. In other words, how you respond to people reflects on the candidate.

                • Alex Europa says:

                  You’re right, I mistyped, thank you for catching that. His GOA rating is A+…the only candidate to hold that rating.

                  NRA ratings can be misleading. See: Reid maintaining his “B” rating after voting for Sotomayor and Kagan, despite the NRA’s statement that candidate’s scores would suffer for such votes.

                • mike says:

                  The fact is that when supporters of a candidate come off as either crazy or simply obnoxious, it can reflect poorly on the candidate.

                  Maybe they could take some lessons from gun bloggers who make fun of people holding candle-light vigils for victims of violence. Because those guys really know how to win hearts and minds..

  22. Crawler says:

    I agree with what Sebastian posted about Mitt blowing in wind.

    Although gun rights are certainly important to all of us, we’re way past gun issues with the next election.

    The number one task at hand is repealing an unconstitutional, unsustainable and Marxist scheme: Obama Care. Mitt has publicly said that he’d sign off on repealing it.

    So, if that means I have to hold my nose (once again) and vote for a RINO and hold his feet repealing a rights infringing Marxist legislation, well, so be it.

    I remember when the worst president in my lifetime, LBJ, inked his Great Society and I’m still seeing the miserable failures of that “signature” legislation every freakin’ day. It is imperative that Obama Care go back to where it originated: the collectivist waste basket. Period.

    The real target should be another near-record (or record) congressional seat change a la November 2010. Presidents that follow which way the public wind blows usually try not to upset the voters that put them in office.

    Bottom line: ABO, O’ has to go…

  23. Steve says:

    The Perot voters gave us Bill Clinton and today the pants wetters want to take their ball and go home and give us 4 more years of Obama? If this is the level of political maturity on the right then G-d help us.
    As a buddy said to me the day after the last election: 1776-2008…we had a good run.

  24. Brad says:

    I lived through the AW controversy since it truly began with the very first State law which passed in California back in the summer of 1989. So I am intimately familiar with all the ridiculous traps and awful mutations of the ban since then. I am also familiar with the Federal AW ban. But I am not familiar with the Massachusetts law.

    BB has told a tale about the MA AW ban, and what Romney did in office as governor. But I have my doubts about the following…

    ———————————————————————–
    Massachusetts already had an AWB that was actually worse than the federal ban in unique ways. On the surface, it was exactly the same because it was partially tied to language in the federal ban. The state ban that was already on the books didn’t have an expiration date – their way of making sure that no matter what happened to the federal ban, the state ban would stand. In theory, when the federal ban expired, what was already on the books in Massachusetts would have just kept the same limits in effect. However, close reading revealed some big dangers for gun owners.
    The state ban, in addition to no expiration date, didn’t have the list of nearly 700 exempted guns that the federal ban allowed. In other words, lawful gun owner would become illegal assault weapons owner overnight and probably never understand why. If an enterprising prosecutor wanted to build up some gun convictions very quickly without much work, he or she could suddenly go after every owner of an M-1 Carbine, Mini-14, Marlin Model 60, or Ruger 10/22 (or other guns on this list) and have a collection of “assault weapon” criminals locked up.

    ———————————————————————–

    Unfortunately there are no links in BB’s tale leading to the original language of the MA AW ban.
    But if, as I suspect, the MA AW ban was nothing more than an aping of the Fed AW ban, than the change of making permanent the list of 700 “exempted” weapons means less than nothing.

    The original list of unaffected weapons in the Fed AW ban was nothing more than window dressing to help passage of the bill through Congress. No serious reading of the ban’s definition of “assault-weapon” could demonstrate any legal threat to any of the weapons the ban listed as exempt. So that Fed list of 700 safe weapons was wholly redundant and unnecessary. Except as propaganda.

    So pardon me if I am underwhelmed by the addition of a similar list of exempt weapons to the MA AW ban.

  25. Ontoliberty says:

    Obama ’12.I say reelect him,pack the supreme court with insane Marxists,let them repeal the law of gravity and declare the constitution unconstitutional and be done with it.

    Then we can quit the charade and see the truth for what it is.Hopefully.

  26. Dan says:

    I don’t know where people are getting this idea that Mitt Romney is unreliable. He can be relied on to do what is the most politically expedient. We can literally trust him as far as we can throw him. Nobody is saying this is ideal, there are certainly better candidates in the race on gun rights, and if they win the nomination they will have my support. But the idea that Romney is going to go out of his way to act against gun rights does not have a basis in reality. Whatever political capital he has if elected will go to pleasing his Wall Street buddies.

  27. woodfoot says:

    mike has the shortest root in the garden. he just must be harvested, along with the rest of the weeds.

  28. Ash says:

    All these people will say what ever to get your vote Ido not trust any of them if you want the truth go to the NRA for truth on any politican gun record

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Surprise: RINO Romney actually good on guns « Bob Owens - [...] Bitter says otherwise. If Mitt ends up winning the race because GOP voters choose him in the nation’s primaries,…
  2. No excuses? « In Defense Of Liberty - [...] at Shall Not Be Questioned provides a pretty good overview of Mitt Romney’s actual record on Gun Control during his…
  3. Mitt Romney on guns | Gun Nuts Media - [...] doing politics here at Gun Nuts, but my friends at PA Gun Blog have a very interesting post up…
  4. SayUncle » Romney and guns - [...] [...]
  5. 2012: Worse, Better | Western Rifle Shooters Association - [...] 2200 EST 16 JAN 2012: Those with the inclination to do so may want to visit this Mittens apologia…
  6. It Isn’t What You may think. | Liberty's Blog - [...] conservative of the candidates,  but where does he stand on the the RKBA issues? Surprisingly, he fares pretty well. A…
  7. Guns and Mitt « Mad Ogre - [...] Romney has taken a lot of flak about guns.  Here is the truth.  Read it twice, carefully.  Let it…
  8. Presidential Candidates & the 2nd Amendment - [...] way. Please read this article from next to the horse's mouth about Mitt Romney's pro 2A views:…
  9. NRA Nightmares | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] Ron to their membership as pro-gun. Trying to sell Mitt isn’t going to pass the smell test, even if…
top